There were so much fewer gun crimes in the wild west because everyone was carrying a gun.

[MyParentsAreProud]

It turns out that the wild west was not so wild.
How wild was the “Wild West”, in fact?

Why are liberals so hell bent on disarming potential hate crime victims from these thugs?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Murder should be legal.

 

[TheOldSchool]

God damn right. I said it.

 

[WheelieAddict]

God damn right. I said it.

Okay heisenberg. I like your sig.

 

[Esmeralda]

It turns out that the wild west was not so wild.
How wild was the “Wild West”, in fact?

Why are liberals so hell bent on disarming potential hate crime victims from these thugs?

It turns out your source is not a valid or reliable one. When a researcher has a bias to support, his research is not reliable.

In the old days, most people lived a frontier life on ranches or farms far away from each other. They didn't communicate l like we do today and were pretty much on their own week in a week out.

In that period of time, everyone having a gun is fine, but it was not anything like our modern world. As well, they didn't have anything even remotely like the firepower we have today. Most people would only have a hunting rifle. The number of men who had pistols would be very limited.

If today people were only allowed single action hunting rifles or pistols, we wouldn't have the problem we have now, but we would still have a different situation because of the fact of the hugely higher population and the vast communication network. Nowadays, for example, when some nutcase sees a mass shooting on the news, he goes out and does the same.

 

[aaronleland]

Who would have thought that there would be so much fewer gun crimes when there were so much fewer people?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It turns out that the wild west was not so wild.
How wild was the “Wild West”, in fact?

Why are liberals so hell bent on disarming potential hate crime victims from these thugs?

Probably there were less crimes in the wild west than people think because all the films were about violence, and it wasn't always like that.

 

[SavannahMann]

It turns out that the wild west was not so wild.
How wild was the “Wild West”, in fact?

Why are liberals so hell bent on disarming potential hate crime victims from these thugs?

It turns out your source is not a valid or reliable one. When a researcher has a bias to support, his research is not reliable.

In the old days, most people lived a frontier life on ranches or farms far away from each other. They didn't communicate l like we do today and were pretty much on their own week in a week out.

In that period of time, everyone having a gun is fine, but it was not anything like our modern world. As well, they didn't have anything even remotely like the firepower we have today. Most people would only have a hunting rifle. The number of men who had pistols would be very limited.

If today people were only allowed single action hunting rifles or pistols, we wouldn't have the problem we have now, but we would still have a different situation because of the fact of the hugely higher population and the vast communication network. Nowadays, for example, when some nutcase sees a mass shooting on the news, he goes out and does the same.

Actually, no.

Pistols were cheap, and reliable. The Colt Navy which was the pistol used by both sides was just one of the readily available weapons. Smith and Wesson also made pistols, as did Remington. By the end of the Civil War, cartridge weapons were replacing muzzle loading cap and ball rifles. The Winchester lever action was just the most well known.

By 1880, single shot weapons were becoming far more rare. There were some but they were mostly heavy rifles, like the Sharps, used for long range shooting. They were not muzzle loaders.

By this same time, there were literally millions of six shot revolvers in existence. Cowboys all had a preferred weapon of course, but so did most everyone else. The other thing to consider was that many of those who settled the West were Veterans of the Civil War. After a man had faced the line at Shiloh, it would not be easy to intimidate him. He knew how to shoot, and fight, well.

Think about this. Would you do something if you weren’t getting paid? If you are, it is called a hobby. But we all need money to afford things like shelter, and food.

The gun makers of the era were spending time, and money developing new more refined, more reliable weapons. Now, if nobody was buying them, why did they spend that money, time, and effort to research and develop the weapons?

By the turn of the Twentieth Century we had seen the Machine Gun already developed and deployed during hostilities. We have seen the breech loading cannon perfected, and larger cannons were being developed constantly. Weapons reliability and quality was improving by leaps and bounds. The Mauser designed bolt action rifle was copied by pretty much every nation, and was standard issue for everyone by the time the First World War came around.

The beginnings of the semi-automatic pistols and rifles had come and these weapons were becoming common. Mauser, Walther, the famed Colt .45 ACP, Browning 9MM.

Many weapons designs were made and really obsolete before they could hit the shelves. Progress moved very quickly. Think of this. Within four decades the Winchester went from revolutionary to obsolete and old fashioned. Pump Shotguns were developed during the same period.

Why would anyone spend the money developing these things, if they were not expecting a big payday when it was perfected?

The same reason that the Model T is not the standard car you see on the road today. The same reason that the Wright Flyer is not the airplane you will see flying overhead today. Those were Genesis, the beginning, not the end.

 

[Camp]

Increasing justifiable homicides drastically decreases the murder rate. A drunk pulling his firearm during an argument and shot dead in the effort was a justifiable homicide.

 

[SavannahMann]

Increasing justifiable homicides drastically decreases the murder rate. A drunk pulling his firearm during an argument and shot dead in the effort was a justifiable homicide.

It pretty much still is today. What was not permissible or justifiable in those days was shooting someone and saying you thought he might have a gun and was afeared for your life. That would get you a hangman’s noose.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Increasing justifiable homicides drastically decreases the murder rate. A drunk pulling his firearm during an argument and shot dead in the effort was a justifiable homicide.

It pretty much still is today. What was not permissible or justifiable in those days was shooting someone and saying you thought he might have a gun and was afeared for your life. That would get you a hangman’s noose.

That's something that needs to return to America: Public Hangings.

I don't care to hear that "Oh, it's inhumane" crap.

Pedos, rapists, and murderers.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Few gun crimes in the wild west? According to what records? Records they didn't keep at the time?

Oh this is how you create fake news! "Records show lower gun crimes".

Also "anarcho-capitalism" is some seriously moronic stuff only far right wack jobs would believe in.

 

[Esmeralda]

It turns out that the wild west was not so wild.
How wild was the “Wild West”, in fact?

Why are liberals so hell bent on disarming potential hate crime victims from these thugs?

It turns out your source is not a valid or reliable one. When a researcher has a bias to support, his research is not reliable.

In the old days, most people lived a frontier life on ranches or farms far away from each other. They didn't communicate l like we do today and were pretty much on their own week in a week out.

In that period of time, everyone having a gun is fine, but it was not anything like our modern world. As well, they didn't have anything even remotely like the firepower we have today. Most people would only have a hunting rifle. The number of men who had pistols would be very limited.

If today people were only allowed single action hunting rifles or pistols, we wouldn't have the problem we have now, but we would still have a different situation because of the fact of the hugely higher population and the vast communication network. Nowadays, for example, when some nutcase sees a mass shooting on the news, he goes out and does the same.

Actually, no.

Pistols were cheap, and reliable. The Colt Navy which was the pistol used by both sides was just one of the readily available weapons. Smith and Wesson also made pistols, as did Remington. By the end of the Civil War, cartridge weapons were replacing muzzle loading cap and ball rifles. The Winchester lever action was just the most well known.

By 1880, single shot weapons were becoming far more rare. There were some but they were mostly heavy rifles, like the Sharps, used for long range shooting. They were not muzzle loaders.

By this same time, there were literally millions of six shot revolvers in existence. Cowboys all had a preferred weapon of course, but so did most everyone else. The other thing to consider was that many of those who settled the West were Veterans of the Civil War. After a man had faced the line at Shiloh, it would not be easy to intimidate him. He knew how to shoot, and fight, well.

Think about this. Would you do something if you weren’t getting paid? If you are, it is called a hobby. But we all need money to afford things like shelter, and food.

The gun makers of the era were spending time, and money developing new more refined, more reliable weapons. Now, if nobody was buying them, why did they spend that money, time, and effort to research and develop the weapons?

By the turn of the Twentieth Century we had seen the Machine Gun already developed and deployed during hostilities. We have seen the breech loading cannon perfected, and larger cannons were being developed constantly. Weapons reliability and quality was improving by leaps and bounds. The Mauser designed bolt action rifle was copied by pretty much every nation, and was standard issue for everyone by the time the First World War came around.

The beginnings of the semi-automatic pistols and rifles had come and these weapons were becoming common. Mauser, Walther, the famed Colt .45 ACP, Browning 9MM.

Many weapons designs were made and really obsolete before they could hit the shelves. Progress moved very quickly. Think of this. Within four decades the Winchester went from revolutionary to obsolete and old fashioned. Pump Shotguns were developed during the same period.

Why would anyone spend the money developing these things, if they were not expecting a big payday when it was perfected?

The same reason that the Model T is not the standard car you see on the road today. The same reason that the Wright Flyer is not the airplane you will see flying overhead today. Those were Genesis, the beginning, not the end.

It is absolutelyy ludicrous to suggest that the type of guns in those days were comparable to what people have now--automatic and semi-automatic weapons. And you ignore the type of population in those days which was mostly rural. Add that to the fact there was no television and internet to get nut cases worked up and you have a completely, totally different set of circumstances.

 

[Moonglow]

It turns out that the wild west was not so wild.
How wild was the “Wild West”, in fact?

Why are liberals so hell bent on disarming potential hate crime victims from these thugs?

With such projection talents you should be a discus thrower in the Olympics..This liberal owns guns and has since being a kid of around 9, my son's have guns, I taught them how to use and take care of them. I am a veteran of the US Army. Yeah I'm real scared of guns....
Fewrw guns in the west than now, well duh the population was smaller and with fewer folks means fewer incidents...

 

[midcan5]

LOL I think the OP is one of the dumbest I've seen in a while. Surely an award is at hand. Award below but sense first.

Guns don't kill people, people don't kill people, America kills people. "It has happened yet again: Inevitably, predictably, fatefully, a gunman shot dead 26 people in a Texas church on Sunday. These incidents are peculiarly American tragedies, and what’s particularly heartbreaking is that they aren’t shocking. People all over the world become furious and try to harm others, but only in the United States do we suffer such mass shootings so regularly; only in the U.S. do we lose one person every 15 minutes to gun violence." How to Reduce Shootings

It's official: The above thread has been awarded the 'Stupid Post of the Month Award'. The 'Stupid' award, the highest award for inane comparison and stupid thinking, is awarded monthly to a person of such low reason and sense, they must be extraordinarily stupid. Simple levels of stupid do not qualify for the award or it would have to be given too often. While it may seem this award is not politically correct, the rational for the award recognizes that some stupid posts far exceed the usual stupid, demonstrating a level of stupid rarely reached in even the stupidest setting. Please accept this award with our fondest wishes it is not an inheritable trait.

FN: Rarely is the board of selectors for the 'Stupid' award unanimous, but in the case noted above, many wished they could vote twice or more.


"The shooter is almost always male. Of the past 129 mass shootings in the United States, all but three have been men. The shooter is socially alienated, and he can’t get laid. Every time you scratch the surface of the latest mass killing, in a movie theatre, a school, the streets of Paris or an abortion clinic, you find the weaponised loser. From Jihadi John of ISIS to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, these men are invariably stuck in the emotional life of an adolescent. They always struggle with self-esteem – especially regarding women – and sometimes they give up entirely on the possibility of amorous fulfilment. There are different levels of tactical coordination, different ostensible grievances and different access to firearms, but the psyche beneath is invariably the same." https://aeon.co/essays/humiliation-a...mass-shootings


"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."

 

[SavannahMann]

Increasing justifiable homicides drastically decreases the murder rate. A drunk pulling his firearm during an argument and shot dead in the effort was a justifiable homicide.

It pretty much still is today. What was not permissible or justifiable in those days was shooting someone and saying you thought he might have a gun and was afeared for your life. That would get you a hangman’s noose.

That's something that needs to return to America: Public Hangings.

I don't care to hear that "Oh, it's inhumane" crap.

Pedos, rapists, and murderers.

You realize that I was talking about the cops and the bullshit answer they give for shooting unarmed people right?

 

[alang1216]

It turns out that the wild west was not so wild.
How wild was the “Wild West”, in fact?

Why are liberals so hell bent on disarming potential hate crime victims from these thugs?

It appears the OP is incorrect, the Old West had some very strict gun control.

“Carrying of guns within the city limits of a frontier town was generally prohibited. Laws barring people from carrying weapons were commonplace, from Dodge City to Tombstone,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at UCLA’s School of Law and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “When Dodge City residents first formed their municipal government, one of the very first laws enacted was a ban on concealed carry. The ban was soon after expanded to open carry, too. The Hollywood image of the gunslinger marching through town with two Colts on his hips is just that — a Hollywood image, created for its dramatic effect.”

 

[SavannahMann]

It turns out that the wild west was not so wild.
How wild was the “Wild West”, in fact?

Why are liberals so hell bent on disarming potential hate crime victims from these thugs?

It turns out your source is not a valid or reliable one. When a researcher has a bias to support, his research is not reliable.

In the old days, most people lived a frontier life on ranches or farms far away from each other. They didn't communicate l like we do today and were pretty much on their own week in a week out.

In that period of time, everyone having a gun is fine, but it was not anything like our modern world. As well, they didn't have anything even remotely like the firepower we have today. Most people would only have a hunting rifle. The number of men who had pistols would be very limited.

If today people were only allowed single action hunting rifles or pistols, we wouldn't have the problem we have now, but we would still have a different situation because of the fact of the hugely higher population and the vast communication network. Nowadays, for example, when some nutcase sees a mass shooting on the news, he goes out and does the same.

Actually, no.

Pistols were cheap, and reliable. The Colt Navy which was the pistol used by both sides was just one of the readily available weapons. Smith and Wesson also made pistols, as did Remington. By the end of the Civil War, cartridge weapons were replacing muzzle loading cap and ball rifles. The Winchester lever action was just the most well known.

By 1880, single shot weapons were becoming far more rare. There were some but they were mostly heavy rifles, like the Sharps, used for long range shooting. They were not muzzle loaders.

By this same time, there were literally millions of six shot revolvers in existence. Cowboys all had a preferred weapon of course, but so did most everyone else. The other thing to consider was that many of those who settled the West were Veterans of the Civil War. After a man had faced the line at Shiloh, it would not be easy to intimidate him. He knew how to shoot, and fight, well.

Think about this. Would you do something if you weren’t getting paid? If you are, it is called a hobby. But we all need money to afford things like shelter, and food.

The gun makers of the era were spending time, and money developing new more refined, more reliable weapons. Now, if nobody was buying them, why did they spend that money, time, and effort to research and develop the weapons?

By the turn of the Twentieth Century we had seen the Machine Gun already developed and deployed during hostilities. We have seen the breech loading cannon perfected, and larger cannons were being developed constantly. Weapons reliability and quality was improving by leaps and bounds. The Mauser designed bolt action rifle was copied by pretty much every nation, and was standard issue for everyone by the time the First World War came around.

The beginnings of the semi-automatic pistols and rifles had come and these weapons were becoming common. Mauser, Walther, the famed Colt .45 ACP, Browning 9MM.

Many weapons designs were made and really obsolete before they could hit the shelves. Progress moved very quickly. Think of this. Within four decades the Winchester went from revolutionary to obsolete and old fashioned. Pump Shotguns were developed during the same period.

Why would anyone spend the money developing these things, if they were not expecting a big payday when it was perfected?

The same reason that the Model T is not the standard car you see on the road today. The same reason that the Wright Flyer is not the airplane you will see flying overhead today. Those were Genesis, the beginning, not the end.

It is absolutelyy ludicrous to suggest that the type of guns in those days were comparable to what people have now--automatic and semi-automatic weapons. And you ignore the type of population in those days which was mostly rural. Add that to the fact there was no television and internet to get nut cases worked up and you have a completely, totally different set of circumstances.

Right. Like the song says, you don’t know much about history do you?

Some of the most well known outlaws of our history were from the old west. The idea that it was all rural folks, and only the separation of peoples prevented violence was and is laughable. William H. Bonny, perhaps you’ve heard of him as “Billy the Kid”.

There was violence, and media of the era sometimes called “penny dreadful” later dime novels, that glamorized the outlaws were sold to anyone, even children. Western fiction - Wikipedia

You see, that was the media of the era. That was the TV and movies of the era. Children reading, I know it seems incredible, but it’s true.

Now, I could list the outlaws of the old west, and you would pretend that they were angels compared to whatever doom and gloom you imagine is going on today. Violence was more infrequent, but just as awful as it is today. Children played with toys, sticks actually that they pretended were guns.

You had train robberies, bridges blown up, dynamite was actually readily available, about as easy to get as a gun. You had stagecoaches that were robbed. Bank robberies, murders, rapes, and all of that nonsense.

Before we can discuss where we are, we have to know where we came from. For example, did you know that Jeremiah Johnson, made famous by the movie starring Robert Redford, was known as Liver Eating Johnson? This was because he ate the livers of the men he killed. There were good guys, and bad guys, folks who straddled the line, and monsters unlike anything you can imagine.

Many of the good guys, were often bad guys too. Look at Wyatt Earp. He was accused of stealing horses, and could never return to that state after he fled before the trial. He was arrested three times while working in a House of Prostitution. Historians argue if he was the pimp, or just a bouncer.

You obviously know little about the history of the “old west”. It was not like a John Wayne movie.